[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: Recurse into same-repos externals at commit time.

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:55:23 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net]
> Sent: maandag 29 augustus 2011 21:55
> To: Neels J Hofmeyr
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Recurse into same-repos externals at commit time.
> On 08/29/2011 02:47 PM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > On 08/29/2011 06:23 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >> On 08/29/2011 12:15 PM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> >>> - when an external is passed as explicit target, still require
> >>> --include-externals?
> >>
> >> No. Because we've recommended in the issue I referenced exactly this
> >> behavior as a workaround for this missing feature.
> >>> I'd say yes (thinking of 'svn commit *')
> >> Is 'svn commit *' really something that people do? I mean, commit is
> >> recursive by nature, so I'd suspect that 'svn commit' is the more common
> >> invocation.
> > [...]
> >> When explicitly named, though, we've
> >> always allowed such commits because from the perspective of such an
> >> operation, we're not looking at an external, just a working copy. (An
> >> external's external-ness is defined outside it's own scope, right?)
> >
> > This is a good point, but IMHO ceases to be one with release 1.7. There no
> > longer is a detached administrative .svn/ inside an external dir. It really
> > is an external inside a "real" WC, always detectable, always overlayed.
> Really? I'm not so sure. Using the example I brought up elsethread:
> $ find sne-wc-top -name .svn
> sne-wc-top/.svn
> sne-wc-top/unversioned/sne-wc-nested/.svn
> sne-wc-top/unversioned/sne-wc-nested/unversioned/sne-wc-ext/.svn
> And I recall arguing against the merging of external working copies into the
> primary one, too. An externals is an *external*, not an internal. :-)
> Sadly, we were forced to do so with file externals. (And maybe that's the
> use-case you were thinking of when you responded above?)

Even with separate working copies we could still move the data to a central wc.db and pristine area. All it would take is a marker in the separate working copy to make us find the store in a parent directory.
(This information could just be stored in the already written entries file)

Received on 2011-08-29 23:55:49 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.